Sunday, March 20, 2005

The Beings, the Creatures and....the Beast? Eh, who can say...

So the creative beings created some little creatures in a special place, on that special planet. They were based in some small way on the beings' own pattern of existence. So the creatures could be creative by using their creativity and ingenuity in their own sort of technology and art. The key to these things was their capacity for language. In the beginning, their language had a rhythm and rhyme that was a union of art and existence, the symbol and the symbolized. They could talk to the Creator who came as being of light to the creatures and taught them about the place that had been made. Such perfection would be an echo and just remnants soon, stories to become legends to myths unto vague intuitions, as the rebellious beings came to the planet and began to fight what was happening there. They began to try to set things in motion that would cause created life to fail. Yet all that they did was redeemed into more life, there and then.

The creative beings had set aside a special garden on the planet where their creatures could learn from the Creator of their universe. One day the little creatures of the Creator were told to take over the planet, to civilize and subdue it. The fallen beings had begun to concentrate all their efforts on overcoming this new threat, these little redeemers. They managed to represent their type of being in some plants and then in some reptilian life too. The beings that represented themselves with light told the creatures not to eat that type of plant, lest they come to know the fallen. The leader of the fallen ones represented himself in reptilian life to tell the creatures that they would be as the beings of light if they would only eat its type of plant, a symbol of knowing its being. It was successful, as the little redeemers ate that which it represented itself with. The creatures did not used their capacity for language against it. That which was their closest link to the creative beings. Instead, they only listened.

After coming to know it, the creatures saw things differently and saw themselves differently, although not much in their garden had changed yet. They did not have the same eyes to see that they once had. There was something eating away at them faster than before. It was not being turned back to good there and then as it had been. It was winning more and more. It was the very thing they were meant to subdue which they had now let into themselves.

The Creator told them that they had killed themselves by eating it. But in their failure, the pattern of the Creator's redemption would only go farther and deeper. He said that some things would change because of their decision, yet they were still the type of creature through which he would destroy and redeem the work of the fallen. And for their sake he killed some animals, then showed them how to make use of the sacrifice by using the skins for clothing.

Although the beings of light were still active in the world they would be separate from the creatures now. The creatures left their garden and remembered the mercy of the Creator toward them through the sacrifice of animals, which symbolized his mercy to them and would come to symbolize more.

They remembered, yet were separated from the Creator and the beings of light now.

38 comments:

If you had time and were interested, I would be interested in your comments on this.

Also, while I have a break from the new boys, I have a couple of questions. 1)Why "mynym?" (Anything to do with "eminem?") 2)What is your goal in writing? Call me curious.

I would send these via email, but it's down at the moment. You can erase this if you want, and reply instead here: vonnoh3 --at-- gmail --dot-- com. (Duh, guess I could've sent it from this address.)

As for being nice, sometimes 'niceness' accomplishes nothing...To this I attest. I did, however, agree with what you wrote. (I quit posting over there as the people leaving comments only wished to argue.)

Actually all it is, is a lack of identity so that a reader tries to read the text instead of the writer. It's purposeful.

Eminem's lack of identity is different...smothering mother and all, perhaps the real slim shady would stand up if slim shady knew who he was.

"What is your goal in writing? Call me curious."

There are many. On the personal level, sometimes I let my writing set my goals for me. Some personal goals have turned to knowing the scripts of Scripture, what sentences are statements of true sentience, and so what a meaningful state of a wit of the writ is.

"I'm curious. Do you think that transparently telling the scripts of Scripture in story form is a good use of writing?

As some viewed the Passion of the Christ, I am sure there are those who view any artistic license being taken with such scripts as inherently wrong."

I have no problem with authors taking literary license.

In the first novel of a trilogy which I wrote, and which was written on the life of King David, I take such liberties. Mind you, I do not add things which were impossible, viz. I would not say that "David put on his tennis shoes." Why? They were not invented yet. But the purpose in this would be, I suppose, to maintain historicity.

If one proposed to write a "modern" retelling of David's life, I still would not have a problem with such license being taken. I would have no problem, that is, if the author made his intention clear.

My opinion is that there ought to be more story telling and movies that match the scripts of Scripture.

What I write is often transparent, some of it just some thoughts on the same themes.

I suppose I don't understand why some writers in the entertainment industry waste their time writing the absolute drivel that they do. There are some nit wits who begin to write anti-scripts and anti-Scripture.

I guess there are those who borrow scripts about spiritual war and the like whose movies are still dumb. It's hard to say what makes things all come together in good art. But my opinion is, truly good art is needed more than good politics, good academia or other elements of the culture.

It's interesting to me that the main prophecies about Jesus are the psalms, songs and poetry. His parables are the art of story telling. Creation fundamentally bears the imprint of artistry in waves, fields and mysteries that support the mysts of mysticism, rather than being empirical, logical and mechanical. And so on.

(I should preface this statement by saying that I have a habit of inventing nicknames for people. This being so, I keep working on various ones for "mynym,"--'auntie emm,' 'emm-e-emm,' etc. Thus far, however, I have refrained from using them.) :)

"As far as I can tell, art seems to be God's way."

Of course God's artistic abilities epitomize what it means to be an artist. As for logical, empirical, and mechanical expressions of our Creator, I find the evidence for these aspects of his creativity to be abundant also. So much so that I would hesitate to suggest God primarily used one 'way.' (I do not, however, think that is what you meant by your statement.)

" It's interesting to me that the main prophecies about Jesus are the psalms, songs and poetry."

I am no scholar. Yet, in my official "Master Plumber's Opinion," it seems to me that some very sound and strong prophecies come from books like Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. Put another way, perhaps poetry was only the conduit. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

"His parables are the art of story telling."

Yes. I have thought of this for some time. See, my parents made me throw out some novels and comics I owned while I was in highschool and still lived at home. The reason? The novels contained references--some explicit references--to wizards and the like. Recently I asked my mom if any story should be written which had a wizard as a character. Being to a great degree logical, she replied that some probably could. My dad is completely opposite. His opinion would be that any story with a wizard is sinful, and this because the scriptures condemn wizards. (Of course this persuasion overlooks the use of something bad in a story for the purpose of showing its badness, among other things.) But the point is, this conversation with mom got me thinking of Jesus. When he wanted to clearly get a point across, he used a story. And a number of his stories were parables; ie. not historical; ie. fiction. Which conclusion is, I suppose, debatable; however, his parables could represent the whole 'art of storytelling,' by virtue of their construction.

"I guess there are those who borrow scripts about spiritual war and the like whose movies are still dumb. It's hard to say what makes things all come together in good art."

One thing to remember. Even those who write such drivel, merely do so because, when they look into the mirror of life they see not truth but error. To put it another way, the 'whole truth' is impossible for them to understand. They get glimpses of the truth, and create accordingly. But they cannot understand the breadth of truth, their minds being blinded. (Not sayin' here that I do understand all truth...just got a better chance bein' a Christian an' all.)

"But my opinion is, truly good art is needed more than good politics, good academia or other elements of the culture."

I, too, think we should all be stupid and creative rather than intelligent and prosaic. LOL

Finally, one question one comment. What do you mean "there is no contradiction between Logos and art"? Comment: It sure as heck is easier to reply at 5:40 am when you have to get up and feed two starving pagans at 4. 'Course, now I have to go to bed at 9-10, but that's alright. It's quiet in the mornings.

"I, too, think we should all be stupid and creative rather than intelligent and prosaic."

Sheesh, I change my pattern of emphasis just a bit, only a bit, and you skewer it! Well, rightly so, as it was wrong. Now you're making me wish that I had skewered something you wrote about how, "I wonder if that man in the Dunkin Donuts would hate me for what I write." Oh my!

For the intolerance of your writing and you. What you did there was shift away from focusing on if your writing is right and into feelings about things. I remember it, oh yes! If you do that then whoever hates or takes offense will define your writing.

My thought was, "There Carl goes, going all soft. I knew he would."

Now...why did I do the same? I may as well stop being conservative and become a bohemian artist right now. After all, I already windsurf.

Anyway, thanks for keeping me in line. And have fun trying to civilize some other little fellows...

For ease of comprehension, at least this is my intention, I preface what I am about to say with this introduction. I realize that verbosity, since it borders on pleonasm, is not generally acceptable. I will, nonetheless, allow this prolixity in my reply. The point being that I hope to make clear my point. (And dang it, sometimes using a bunch of words is just fun.)

“Sheesh, I change my pattern of emphasis just a bit, only a bit, and you skewer it! Well, rightly so, as it was wrong. Now you're making me wish that I had skewered something you wrote about how, "I wonder if that man in the Dunkin Donuts would hate me for what I write." Oh my!”

Strangely enough, when I wrote the piece which you reference, I believed that you would think the thoughts you here described. Mind you, it was Waffle House, and emphatically not Dunkin Donuts. I mention this only as Waffle House is, perhaps, the closest to heaven we shall get while residing on a fallen planet.

Regarding the “change of pattern,” I freely admit that I am not intelligent enough to observe such. It follows that I did not detect the change and was merely poking fun. And, being but a poor chef, I would never have attempted to skewer you.

If my reply made you wish that you too had filleted a writing of mine, I sincerely apologize for causing such thoughts of revenge to rise in your breast. As we all know, revenge is a dish best served cold.

"For the intolerance of your writing and you. What you did there was shift away from focusing on if your writing is right and into feelings about things. I remember it, oh yes!"

I do not doubt that you remembered it, oh no. I do, however, enter my plea: I was seeking compassion in presentation, NOT tolerance of wrong actions. My original post had to do with the presentation of the truth...not the watering down thereof. Observe: "...would he admit "yeah, I've done that," but at the same time despise me for the way I presented it?" And also, "...I am not saying we should "water down" the truth."

"“If you do that then whoever hates or takes offense will define your writing. My thought was, "There Carl goes, going all soft. I knew he would."

Dang it! Why did you ‘know’ that Carl would go soft?! Further, is it wrong to speak softly sometimes? For one to be compassionate in their writing, or speaking, does not necessarily mean they are having what they say defined by other’s opinions. This, I think, is the 'something' we have been seeking about which we can debate. Perhaps I shall write out my thoughts more fully at another time. For now, I simply contend that I was musing in the abstract upon the platform one should take when presenting the truth. I was theorizing. But the ultimate reality is, though I believed someone would perhaps disagree, I did not let this stop me from presenting my speculations.

"Now...why did I do the same? I may as well stop being conservative and become a bohemian artist right now. After all, I already windsurf. Anyway, thanks for keeping me in line. And have fun trying to civilize some other little fellows..."

I seek to ‘civilize’ no one; bohemians least of all. Lol.

"By the way, do you have links to your stories, like that one you were talking about, online?"

Are you speaking of the first book of my trilogy to which I referred? If so, no, I do not have a link online, but I could email you a few chapters.

(Hmmm, there he goes off into reason and big words. I wonder if he argues with his wife that way. If this is so, then such and such. If such, then this follows that. Since that, then this...and then a little this and that too!)

"I sincerely apologize for causing such thoughts of revenge to rise in your breast."

Not revenge, but thinking on the salubrious effect of clear eyed judgment and how it follows that such and such is so and so, which all works to the good.

"...is it wrong to speak softly sometimes?"

I think I shall try writing softly sometimes, subtly, like a sibilant serpent.

Your perception,"I perceive to be the reality that I should be more gentle in presentation. Else, perhaps I am doing more harm than good."

That is not really tangible. It would be better for you to go through the writing you fear will inspire hatred and demonstrate how it can be changed. (Changed to avoid such and such following from so and so.) Otherwise, all you're really writing about is a vague sense of angst.

For instance, I've noticed that I use the terms moral degenerate more now. The other day the zipper on my jacket just wouldn't go and I almost thought, "This zipper is such a moral degenerate!" But before I did I thought, "You know, I've probably been using the terms moral degenerate a bit too much."

Then I thought, "Besides, this zipper is inaminate matter. Its substance trails off into fields of energy. It is the same ancient matter that was there in the Big Bang. It is thousands of years old, perhaps millions, the matter of star dust. This zipper is the key to many mysteries!"

Just kidding....what was the discussion? Oh, that's right, how nice and gentle you're going to be. Well, I guess you'll have to keep worrying about it and see how it goes.

""Your perception,"I perceive to be the reality that I should be more gentle in presentation. Else, perhaps I am doing more harm than good."

That is not really tangible. It would be better for you to go through the writing you fear will inspire hatred and demonstrate how it can be changed. (Changed to avoid such and such following from so and so.) Otherwise, all you're really writing about is a vague sense of angst.

This is the only thing that you wrote which troubles me. It troubles me, no doubt, because I do not fully understand your meaning. If you would be so kind--I had about said 'nice'--as to elaborate, I would be grateful.

And no, I do not argue with my wife in that manner. Being highly spiritual, I do not argue with my wife at all! ROFL!!!

One very nice fellow said once,"We must not suppose that even if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world -- and might even be more difficult to save. For mere improvement is no redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine." --C.S. Lewis

"This is the only thing that you wrote which troubles me. It troubles me, no doubt, because I do not fully understand your meaning."

It is troubling, yet not worrying. For worry is so worrisome.

What I mean is if you are going to muse about your writing then you may as well read the words to see if they are despicable and hateful. If they are, then it follows that you should change them. Supposedly, through the if/then/if/then processes of logic I have just told you how to unpack the present from the past. So now you can have a nice presentation of the present, which would be a nice present to give people.

Am I now only "so-so" because I write to better understand what I am pondering? Surely you jest.

As to the quote from Lewis, I trust that you do not believe I am merely trying to convert people to nice-ness in what I write.

Are you, by the 'fake Carl/real Carl' dialogue implying that logic is not a good thing? Are you saying instead that my logic is no good? If the latter, I heartily agree. If the former, I can only say, surely you jest.

But it is entirely conceiveable that, in my sleep deprived state, I am misunderstanding something.

Carl

P.S.

Nice wackos on my site who would rather have clean water than a human life...hmm?

"Am I now only "so-so" because I write to better understand what I am pondering?"

Not at all, I think the fake Carl doesn't like you because he cannot be as kind and gentle as you are. The kind and gentle real Carl, he's so nice! A bit of a fibber though...at least the fake Carl is honest.

Do not worry so, your logic and reason is often quite sound, making you seem philosophical, a gentleman and a scholar. Maybe a little too gentle....

As to writing to better understand your own thoughts, that's probably a good thought to write. I will let my words do my communicating for me and then I'll see what your words have to say back. For no man gets to the writer but by his words, as they do not get to the Writer but by the Word. Liberals do not like words because they are narrow and judge. So they blur, pervert and subvert them in various ways.

It seems that they fail to understand that a Writer may break his Word without killing its spirit, which opens the way they are seeking.

"Nice wackos on my site who would rather have clean water than a human life...hmm?"

Yes, I was wondering, why can't I have some wackos on my site? I would like some.

I think I shall post something for those with little ones sometime. Some in my family have them too. Such a blessing! The trick with these lil' blessings seems to be to let others have them, and then you get to hold them! To hold, but not to have....not at 4:00am in the morning, anyway...

Dang it!!! How have I fibbed? (If we weren't friends--of a sort, having never met--this comment might lead to fisticuffs!)

Carl,

who is now going to bed so I can get up at the aforementioned four o'clock. (You'd better have a sound reply. Else, how can one reply to a reply that is no reply? Or rather, let us see how your words shall answer mine that I may answer thine.)